Mark O...Not all of us are as blessed with vocabulary as you. When I see a writer or a speaker trying out words, but editing them with better words as he goes it seems normal to me. Words have a taste like foods, and gourmet taste combinations of the right word beats quick hamburger helper hash.

""Why did Cornel West call Obama "a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats"?"

That's kind of a dumb question.

The better question is even though Barack Obama is nothing more than a leashed pit bull being walked down Wall Street by Goldman Sachs gangsters ... why will 95% of black voters pull the lever for him anyway?

Why are black people so easily led by a charlatan? What is it about black people that's different that cause them to herd this way?

"Why did Cornel West call Obama 'a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats'?"

Why are black people so easily led by a charlatan? What is it about black people that's different that cause them to herd this way?

Maybe because the slave mentality is more deeply ingrained in black people, especially those who remain in predominately black communities, than we think.

Ex-slaves were led around by the nose by the carpetbaggers for a couple of generations. Then they jumped over to the Demos starting with the New Deal.

Perhaps once they settle on an ideological "Massa", they follow relatively blindly. We know a black woman who made a point of moving out of a black neighborhood because she didn't want her kids growing up in that kind of group culture that anyone of that race is more trustworthy than anyone else.

I do not know what or who Obama is fronting for, but one does get the feeling he is fronting for something; that there is something not quite real about him. Things happen around him; he is not leading or causing them to happen. He is just there making dull and platidinous speeches and otherwise voting present.

PS Disagree with shout. White people do the same thing ("what's in it for me?"), but stupid white people seem to vote Demo.

The ones who want to make money on their own, who don't want to rearrange their lives to Chuckie Schumer's dictates, who don't want twits like Gloria Steinbrenner or Al Sharpton telling them how to live, don't vote Demo.

"Because blacks ask the question whites are forbidden to ask: "What's in it for me?"

I hate to be disagreeable, but this just isn't logical. I mean how can this possibly be? How can this be the explanation?

What's in it for black people who vote for Obama is 16% unemployment for black men. Black unemployment rose EVEN when overall unemployment was falling, according to the AFL-CIO.

Under Barack Obama, 35% of blacks now live in abject poverty, according to the Kaiser Institute.

And while blacks make up only 12% of the population, Obama and his mostly-white police force have jailed so many black people that now 40% of all people in jail are black. Only Obama racism explains that statistic.

Obama is scared of the true black man, so he's putting them behind bars.

Blacks can't find jobs, are underpaid when they can find jobs such that they're in poverty or imprisoned when trying to feed their families. That's black life under Barack Obama.

What's in it for them?

An estimated 17% of Latino homeowners and 11% of African-American homeowners have already lost their home to foreclosure or are now at imminent risk of losing their homes - according to the Center for Responsible Lending.

How can black people be voting 95% for this cracker Obama, who allows millions to be paid out to Wall Street executives living the high life.

What's in it for them is jail, poverty, homelessness and abject fucking misery.

I'm thinking maybe black people should hold a separate convention should get together and make an offer to Republicans. Then maybe they'd be taken seriously as a political force.

No, there must be something else causing black people to vote herd-like 95%. It can't be explained by them saying "what's in it for me?" Because there is nothing in it for them.

Cornel West doesn't have to justify a single word of a single idiot statement he's ever made. When he gets out of bed in the morning he knows that no one dasn't challenge him no matter what he says. And that's all day! It's like he's a...GOD!

Nat Turner and Toussaint were house slaves, and not in any metaphorical sense either. Slavery is an African institution that dates back four thousand years. The closer an African American remains to his roots, the more likely he is to remain buried and manured. Truths of equality and freedom might, indeed, be self evident, but they only became so several hundred years ago and only among relatively privileged western Europeans.....There is a kind of paradox at the heart of Cornell West. His authenticity is a fabrication of white, Marxist intellectuals, and he is their parrot and mascot.

"Blacks on average score about 20 points lower in IQ than whites score on average."

Even if you accept that premise as a fact (for the sake of argument, let's bypass that debate for now) this can't explain mathematically that blacks as a group are voting the same way by a 95%-5% margin.

It's statistically impossible for even stupid people to vote this identically. Even chance error would prevent this. It's mathematically and historically impossible.

There has to be a better explanation that satisfies both the politics and takes into account historic voting patterns worldwide.

For example, if you look at all other issues (such as ballot initiatives or taxes) blacks never sync up their votes like this. Never. Ever. Historically. Since they were given the vote.

20% of EVERY group is pissed off enough to vote against their own group members. This is a statistical mathematical certainty.

My take is that West is just pissed at the personal slight. Henry Gates got a personal beer summit and West couldn't even get tickets to the inaugural. ("I did favors for the man! And I'm black! He owes me!")

West may have a point that such behavior is illustrative of a deep problem, but it's still kinda crass to use the "He hurt me" narrative as a jumping-off point in a political criticism.

(Can you imagine Hitchens writing "I asked Kissinger to make me a cocktail once, and he refused; it was then I knew he'd be a war criminal.")

Maybe because Cornel West is a one-trick pony and race hustling is his one trick?

This. West is upset for the same reason Jackson wanted to "cut [Obama's] nuts out." He's got a good scam going, and Obama is threatening to mess it up. I mean, if a black man can be elected president, who needs Cornel West to interpret everyone's (well, white peoples') actions in light of their unrealized racism? It's not like he's got any actual scholarly output.

If Obama is a "puppet of corporate plutocrats" that could mean white people were manipulated into voting for him by the, um, plutocracy. Then they could still be basically racist and would need West to point it out with new mass-market books and rap albums.